Thoughts on modern dating’s ’18 Ugly Truths.’

In his fabulous April 5 Thought Catalog post, Christopher Hudspeth listed 18 “ugly truths” about modern dating — experiences so common, you have to deal with them (so the post’s headline says); experiences so universal, nary a young adult who dates can read them and not cringe a knowing cringe.

Modern dating, as Hudspeth describes it, is a game. And it’s not like Jenga, the game that brings laughter and joy to all who crowd around the tower. No — modern dating as Hudspeth describes it is like the game that ends with crying, kicking the air and a projectile deck of cards because your partner tricked you into picking the Old Maid.

The ugliest truth about Hudspeth’s post is that Hudspeth is right: dating as he knows it gets ugly — and in my observation and experience, especially in five of the 18 ways he lists. Below are my five “favorites,” and beneath each, my thoughts:

Because we want to show how cavalier and blasé we can be to the other person, little psychological games like ‘Intentionally Take Hours Or Days To Text Back’ will happen. They aren’t fun.

The worst part about the need to be blasé is that we will act that way even if we aren’t. We are aloof when we don’t want to be because, as Hudspeth pointed out in another ugly truth, “the person who cares less has all the power.” We are terrified to express ourselves, lest what we express or how we express it result in our striking the people we like as creepy. But we all know another of Hudspeth’s ugly truths to be true: “The only difference between your actions being romantic and creepy is how attractive the other person finds you.” — which means intentionally taking hours to text back is a manipulative defense against having to accept that someone doesn’t like you. It is a preemptive strike that requires us to forego a facet of relationships on which a relationship’s success is actually hinged: authenticity.

A person being carefree because they have zero interest in you looks exactly like a person being carefree because they think you’re amazing & are making a conscious effort to play it cool. Good luck deciphering between the two.

People who act blasé when they aren’t don’t solely complicate dating for their potential partners. They also complicate dating for themselves. I agree with Hudspeth: a person who actually isn’t interest behaves exactly like a person who is pretending not to be interested. But a problem arises for people who have acted not interested when the people they like are aloof. They be all like, “IT’S BEEN TWO DAYS AND HE HASN’T RETURNED MY TEXT. …but I know exactly what he’s doing. He’s making a conscious effort to play it cool.” — when what he’s actually doing is moving on. Or, they be like, “IT’S BEEN TWO DAYS AND SHE HASN’T RETURNED MY TEXT. …She hates me.” — when what’s she’s actually doing is making a conscious effort to play it cool. People hate this, but people resist changing this. But changing this is what I propose we do: if you’re interested, express interest explicitly. If you aren’t, don’t (and when necessary, express that explicitly).

Set plans are dead. People have options and up-to-the-minute updates on their friends (or other potential romantic interests) whereabouts thanks to texts & social media. If you aren’t the top priority, your invitation to spend time will be given a “Maybe” or “I’ll let you know” and the deciding factor(s) will be if that person has offers more fun/interesting than you on the table.

Do people opt for “Maybe!” to avoid missing out on better plans, or do people opt for “maybe” because they’re wusses? The fear of yes indeed has power, but so does the fear of no. There is great discomfort in discovering that a person in whom you have no interest has misread your social cues and invited you out. And what about an invitation from a friend, but to do a thing that doesn’t interest you? No is hard to say because no is hard to hear. But when we want to say no and don’t, we create false hope.

The text message you sent went through. If they didn’t respond, it wasn’t because of malfunctioning phone carrier services.


With the exception of an app I use to text (which is notorious for not notifying me when I get new messages), this ugly truth is true, too. But it is not necessarily true that silence is the result of hatred, anger or offense. Phones die. People have jobs. While sometimes, a person doesn’t text back because they don’t want to, more times, a person is on the toilet and didn’t bring the phone. (Consider that “assumptions are the termites of relationships,” to borrow a quote from Henry Winkler.)

You aren’t likely to see much of someone’s genuine, unfiltered self until you’re in an actual relationship with him or her. Generally people are scared that sincerely putting themselves out there will result in finding out that they’re too available, too anxious, too nerdy, too nice, too safe, too boring, not funny enough, not pretty enough, not some other person enough to be embraced.

It is because of this ugly truth that we “want to show how cavalier and blasé we can be,” as discussed in an earlier ugly truth. It is this ugly truth that stamps out any shot we had at creating a relationship conducive to what all of us truly crave: love. But we want it without the discomfort of discernment — without the discomfort of disclosing who we are before we agree to commit so a decision to commit (or not) is informed. But we can’t discern a relationship with a person if we don’t know who a person is. And we can’t receive love if we aren’t being who we are. 

– – – –

Click here to read Hudspeth’s 18 ugly truths in full.

[Relationships] Three things that aren’t the end of the world.

Relationships. are. a. mess.

They’re a mess because they can be fun and hard and fulfilling and devastating and a privilege and torture, depending. They’re a mess because they can turn us into the best or worst versions of ourselves. (Maybe we are a mess?) They can make a day, a month, a year — or break it. They can inspire us to shout “I LOVE MY LIFE!” or to pout like whatever has happened in them is the end of the world.

But is it really?

Probably not, and particularly not when what has happened is as follows:

1. You were moody, boring, tired, or having a bad hair day the last time you talked to or saw him or her. If he or she is really marriage material and thinks you are, too, he or she will get over it. #justsayin.

2. He or she doesn’t intuitively meet your expectations. I’ve blogged before about the time a guy I dated ended a phone call with me by saying “I’ll call ya later.” He never did. And it irked me. He handed me an expectation that he didn’t fulfill. I was hesitant at first the next day to bring up how bothered by it I was because I worried I would come across as needy. But there’s a difference between being needy and communicating a need. It is not the end of the world if the guy or girl you date (or marry!) doesn’t intuitively meet your expectations because the guys and girls you date (or marry!) aren’t mind readers. If you expect somebody to meet all your expectations but you are unwilling to express your expectations, your relationship is, how shall we say… doomed. Dealing with unmet expectations is part of discerning a marriage with someone. It’s part of deciding whether there are some expectations somebody ought to meet intuitively. An unmet expectation is an opportunity to communicate with the person you date (and to learn how good he or she is at listening).

3. He or she’s just not that into you. Unrequited interest is a bummer, but it isn’t the end of the world. It isn’t the end of the world because “if our God is for us, then who could ever stop us?” — if you’re supposed to end up with somebody, you will, regardless of whether the interest is initially mutual. If you don’t end up with somebody you like, it isn’t the end of the world, either. A wise friend of mine reminded me once: if you think he or she is awesome (and he or she turns out to be some guy or girl you’re not even gonna marry), your actual future spouse will be even more awesome. #Legit.

What else isn’t the end of the world?

Not all men are bullets.

A phone call is jarring when in it, your friend divulges the discovery she made of her husband’s infidelity. Of her boyfriend’s big lie. Of her crush’s double life. Or of his wife.
Whatever the breach of trust, the result — at first, at least — is devastating. One person’s choice pulls the path out from under somebody else, somebody who didn’t sign up for this. Somebody who promised to be true to him even in bad times after he promised infidelity would never be the source of them.Until it was.

“Until death,” as it turns out, is often code for “until I change my mind” — fidelity often only upheld when not inconvenient. She picks him as husband and intertwines her world with his, but has to peg him, when he leaves her, as a bullet.

You really dodged a bullet.

Fidelity is too often breached, too treated as impossible. I’ve received too many jarring phone calls.This isn’t a blame game. Relationships are systemic, and most marriages that end probably shouldn’t have started. But I’ve met enough women who are so disheartened by the men who used to walk life beside them to share this with all men on women’s behalf:

 
Some of us are giving up on you.Which doesn’t mean good single men will be single forever. It means women need good single men now more than ever.

We need you to step up and stand out.

To teach your brothers (biological or otherwise) how to make good choices.

To teach them to treat women first as sisters.

We need our male friends and our brothers and our dads to do what they say they are going to do. We need to meet men who use forethought before they pursue us, who pursue God before they pursue us. We need men whose choices inspire us to say “they do exist” (and not “is this some kind of a joke?”).

We need to know that men exist who want to love a woman like Christ loves the church. Who know love is a choice.

We need to know that not all men are bullets.

Because I know you aren’t, but I know a lot of ladies who need good men to prove it.

Thoughts on men and their emotions.

Last month, a fellow blogger asked me what I — as a woman — think it means to be a man. So in a comment on his blog, I wrote the following:

I could write a whole post (and perhaps I will after I finish my book!). But here’s what comes to mind at first: A man uses words to communicate. He does what he says he’s going to do. He understands emotion to be a human thing, not a woman thing, and expresses his own. If he was raised not to express emotion, he makes an effort as an adult to unlearn what he learned (even if with the help of a licensed therapist). He has integrity, which means he doesn’t do stuff (or makes a concerted effort to avoid doing stuff) in private that doesn’t align with his public image. He practices chastity and knows love is a choice as opposed to a feeling.

Another of the blogger’s readers left a comment regarding mine:

Actually, in this, you’re buying into the mindset that tries to turn men into hairy women. No one *teaches* men to “not express emotion” — it is a natural result of being in control of yourself, which is the masculine ideal. Furthermore, no one, needs, nor even wants, “men” who wear their emotions on their sleeves, least of all women [sic]When it comes to emotions, the world was better off when women worked to emulate what comes naturally to men, by keeping a lid on theirs. Instead, most “women” thesa days mentally junior-high school girls [sic] … as are far too many so-called men.

These are my thoughts on that:

  • To my readers who are men: IGNORE HIM. You are not a hairy woman if you express emotion. You are a person who functions. A “masculine ideal” that doesn’t let you be who you are or feel what you feel is a crock of you know dang well what. Reject it.
  • No one needs men who wear emotions on their sleeves? Reminder: Jesus wept.
  • Words like the ones written by that reader are the reason an 11-year-old boy I once met is more likely to put his fist through a wall than to cry when he’s upset. By telling boys “crying is for wimps,” you don’t encourage strength. You set them up to be alarmed by feelings when feelings arise (and they will). You discourage the development of their abilities to manage emotion, because you can’t learn to manage what you aren’t allowed to experience.
  • Emotion is human. The moment you call expression of it weak, it becomes strong: evidence of a willingness to go against the grain — a grain manufactured by people like the guy who wrote the comment. (A willingness, which, for the record, is totally attractive.)
  • Women don’t want men who express emotion? First, men can’t tell women what women want. Stop it. Second, if I wind up with a guy who cries when he proposes or commits on an altar to intertwining his entire life with mine, or when our kids are born or our pets and loved ones die, or the Fresh Prince rerun we’re watching happens to be particularly heart wrenching, GOOD. I’ll cry with him.
  • The writer posits that men aren’t supposed to express emotion because not expressing emotion is “a natural result of being in control of yourself, which is the masculine ideal.” It is good, regardless of gender, to be in control of yourself. And it is normal to have emotions. But it is flawed to imply it is a loss of self-control to express them.
  • Perhaps the people who have lost control of self are not the ones who express emotion, but the ones who don’t. Who is in control when what you will or won’t do is based on what other people think of you?

Thoughts on dating (a surprise post!).

I announced recently that I will return to blogging on Dec. 30. Surprise! I miss blogging, so I’m taking advantage of a lunch break to jot some thoughts I want to share while they are fresh (incomplete though they may be):

While I work lately on a chapter that covers what life is like when you’re single, I have observed in myself and others, past and present, how content we are to start or end relationships based on sensual experiences. I have always written about this, but there is more to it than I thought. When we understand that relationships aren’t supposed to start (or end!) based solely on a sensual reactions to interactions with a person, we need not solely say “there has to be more” but we need to know what more there could be. First we have to like a person for more reasons than “I enjoy how I feel when I have his or her attention.” Then we have to have bad days with people we like and we have to be able to decide on bad days that this pursuit is good.

The magnitude of this is kind of intense. In the guest post on the blog today, John Janaro wrote we ought to marry people who are willing to suffer with us and with whom we’d be willing to suffer. This is brilliant and horrifying because I’m pretty sure people in our culture are far more likely to marry somebody because getting to know him or her involved less suffering than getting to know other people did.

I think most of us have half of this down: we are willing to suffer in long-term relationships with people whose red flags we continue to deny, or we start relationships for good reasons but quit when days are bad or boring.

Having a handle on both starting and staying because we should is probably the hardest part of dating in our culture.